Conducted within the framework of causal research model in translation studies, the present experimental work addresses the effect of applying certain interpreter-training-specific techniques (e.g. shadowing, improvisation, anticipation, paraphrasing, split-attention exercises, memory enhancement exercises, etc.) on the quality of simultaneous interpretation by the trainees. Prior to the commencement of the experiment, a standard test of General English (IELTS) was administered to ensure homogeneity. The participants (initially 102 who were later reduced to 70) were all undergraduate translation trainees, of whom 35 received the treatment (experimental group) and the remaining 35 did not (control group). Two tests of simultaneous interpretation (a pretest and a posttest) were conducted and then rated by three raters. T-test results for the pretest (t=0.59) showed there was no significant difference between the two groups whereas t-test results for the posttest (t=5.1) indicated that the experimental group outperformed the control group significantly. Such an improvement is believed to be the outcome of the treatment. The possible relation between experimental subjects’ rate of SI improvement and their multiple intelligences was investigated: as to Gardner’s first five intelligences, no statistically significant correlation was found (verbal-linguistic: -0.03, logical-mathematical: 0.178, visual-spatial: 0.26, musical-rhythmic: 0.06, bodily-kinesthetic: 0.02) while the remaining three were observed to correlate significantly with SI improvement level (interpersonal: -0.49, intrapersonal: 0.482, naturalist: 0.446). The possible relation between SI improvement rate and Jung’s two personality types was also probed into: extroversion turned out to have a correlation of -0.08 (near zero) and introversion correlated to the extent of 0.46; a moderate positive correlation, though statistically non-significant.

1.1 Chapter Overview

The present chapter outlines the whole work on a small scale. We will first look at a short introduction to and background of the problem, then the significance and purpose of the study will be briefly discussed and finally the questions, hypotheses, and theoretical framework of the present study along with the main limitation and delimitations will be stated.

1.2 Introduction

Translation, considered in its broadest sense, is a practice, with a history thought to be as long as that of mankind, which has had tremendous influences upon man’s life throughout the history. The significance of such a practice in this day and age, duly termed as the age of communication, is far from disputable especially when one considers the role played by translation in all the communications that take place in various contexts. Therefore it is easy to see why the scientific study of translation has gained an unprecedented momentum over the past couple of decades.

No one can be sure when interpreting, in its broadest sense, was first undertaken by human beings. However, it is logical to assume that interpreting is definitely older than translation since the latter came into existence after the invention of some kind of writing system while the former could have existed before that. Pöchhacker (2005, p. 682) makes the following observation in this regard:

Interpreting as the activity of enabling or facilitating communication between speakers of different languages is a millennial practice, with earliest records dating back some five-thousand years (cf. Hermann 1956/2002).

However, for numerous reasons, to be elaborated on by researchers, translation has attracted much more attention in the history than interpreting. As Pöchhacker (2004, as cited in Pöchhacker, 2005, p. 683) states “In the history of scholarship on translation, few authors have reflected specifically on what we now call ‘interpreting’.” (my emphasis) The systematic study of interpreting is rare and cannot be claimed to be older than a number of decades (cf. Seleskovitch, 1999; Shaw et al., 2004; Riccardi, 2005; Pöchhacker, 2005; Lung & Li, 2005; Seeber & Zelger, 2007).

One reason for this could be that there exists a sort of widely-held misconception among people – laypeople to be more precise: anyone who knows two languages well enough can be a translator, and anyone who is a translator can be an interpreter. Schmitz (1988, pp. 273-274, as cited in Ibrahim, 2009, p. 358) makes the following observation regarding this chaotic situation:

Anyone can decide to use the title [translator/interpreter], however dim their consciousness may be of the intellectual equipment required for the jobs […]. If someone designs a building he does not call himself an architect unless he is qualified to do so […]. And yet anyone who thinks he knows a foreign language and can therefore translate, and who feels like earning a living that way full-time or part-time, can put an ad in the paper without more ado claiming to be a translator and interpreter.